Stages of the Peer-Review Process

The journal employs a three-stage review process:

• Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor evaluates the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s scope, compliance with submission requirements, and similarity or plagiarism results.
• Double-Blind Peer Review: The manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The identities of the authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.
• Revision and Evaluation: Authors are notified of the reviewers’ comments and requested to submit a revised manuscript, together with a response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Peer Review of Referred Manuscripts

For manuscripts referred from another journal or editorial channel, the editors may consider existing review reports when making a decision. Additional external reviews may be requested when necessary to ensure an independent and comprehensive assessment.

Summary of the Review Workflow

1. Manuscript submission through OJS.
2. Technical and editorial screening.
3. Similarity or plagiarism checking.
4. Double-blind peer review by at least two reviewers.
5. Editorial decision and author revision.
6. Resubmission and evaluation of revisions.
7. Final decision, copyediting, production, and publication.

Editorial Decisions

• Accept Submission: The manuscript meets the journal’s academic and editorial standards.
• Revisions Required: The manuscript requires minor or major revisions before it can be considered further.
• Resubmit for Review: Substantial revisions are required, followed by another round of peer review.
• Resubmit Elsewhere: The manuscript is academically relevant but falls outside the journal’s aims and scope.
• Decline Submission: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s academic, ethical, or editorial requirements.